Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review

The E-M1 is the second model in Olympus's OM-D series and extends the range further into semi-pro/enthusiast territory. There are two main distinctions that set the E-M1 apart from its little brother (the E-M5) - a more sophisticated autofocus system and a 'buttons for everything' design approach. As such the two models will coexist, with the E-M1 sitting at the very top of Olympus's lineup.

The biggest technological step forward on the E-M1 is the addition of on-sensor phase detection elements, giving the camera two distinct focus modes. The phase-detection system is used when lenses from the original Four Thirds system, which were designed for use that way, are attached. With native, Micro Four Thirds lenses, the camera will mainly stick with the contrast detection system that has proved so fast and accurate on the E-M5. Only if you use tracking AF will the camera utilize phase-detection information with a Micro Four Thirds lens.

The E-M1 also gains the excellent 2.3M-dot electronic viewfinder panel we first saw as the VF-4 accessory for the PEN E-P5. Not only is the resolution very impressive, but the viewfinder optics give a viewfinder with magnification of up to 1.48x (depending on display mode), which puts it only a fraction behind the 0.76x viewfinder in Canon's 1D X and ahead of Nikon's pro-grade D4 DSLRs.

There's also a more advanced 'TruePic VII' processor in the E-M1 that conducts a variety of lens corrections, when creating JPEGs, leading the company to proclaim the best image quality offered by one of its cameras. Not only can the E-M1 remove the colour fringing caused by lateral chromatic aberration, Olympus says that it also tunes its sharpening to take into account the lens's sharpness, and to combat any softening due to diffraction (particularly at very small apertures).

The biggest difference between the E-M1 and the E-M5, though, is the degree of direct control on offer. We really liked the E-M5's twin-dial control system, but the E-M1 goes beyond that by providing button-and-dial combinations for quickly changing almost every imaginable setting on the camera. It's the kind of approach you don't usually get until the very top of manufacturers' lineups - it means you have to get used to where every function is, but can shoot fluidly once you have.

The E-M1 inherits the '2x2' dial approach Olympus previously used on the E-P5 - flicking a switch on the camera changes the dials from controlling shutter speed, aperture or exposure compensation to changing ISO and white balance. However, all this direct control doesn't come at the expense of the potentially slower but easier to find touch-screen interface - the E-M1 has this too. Overall the camera can be operated pretty much however you fancy.

Built-in Wi-Fi for remote shooting and image transfer to smartphone or tablet

Dust, splash and freeze-proof (to -10 °C)

Gained over the E-M5

True Pic VII processor, with lens corrections

1/8000 sec top shutter speed, 1/320 sec flash sync

Built-in microphone socket (rather than optional accessory adapter)

Flash X-sync socket

Built-in Wi-Fi

Focus 'peaking' display

In-camera HDR blending (two modes), previewed in viewfinder

Four Thirds is dead. Long live Four Thirds.

As well as representing the highest-end Micro Four Thirds camera yet, the E-M1's role is also about offering continued support for users of the original Four Thirds SLR system. Olympus created some very nice Four Thirds lenses, but the company struggled to make enough impact in the SLR market to justify the cost of continuing development for both systems in parallel.

The company claims to have studied what the E-M1 and a hypothetical 'E-7' SLR could offer, and concluded that, while image quality, durability and speed would have been the same, the OM-D design allowed both a substantial size advantage and a much greater viewfinder magnification than would be possible with an optical finder. As such the E-M1 should be considered the successor to the E-5.

We'll look at the performance of the camera with Four Thirds lenses in a little more depth later in this article. But in principle, the on-sensor phase detection autofocus system should be much more effective than contrast detection when it comes to controlling Four Thirds lenses, all of which were primarily designed to be driven by phase detection-based systems.

If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital
Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help
you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based
on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review
before coming to your own conclusions.

Images which can be viewed
at a larger size have a small magnifying glass icon in the bottom
right corner of the image, clicking on the image will display a
larger (typically VGA) image in a new window.

To navigate the review simply
use the next / previous page buttons, to jump to a particular section
either pick the section from the drop down or select it from the
navigation bar at the top.

DPReview calibrate their
monitors using Color Vision OptiCal at the (fairly well accepted)
PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make
out the difference between all of the (computer generated) grayscale
blocks below. We recommend to make the most of this review you should
be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally
A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2013 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Comments

Folks, may be I am getting old and may be some lenses (not the Long Toms I use a lot) have no manual focus ring anymore, but I never understood the fuss about AF. Who needs this feature, really? Press and sports photographers, OK, and blind people, who should not be taking pictures in the first place. All these people who send their lenses back and forth to have them serviced because of perceived front or back focus make me laugh. I remember an article in AP, I think it was, when Heather Angel said she only bought her first AF Nikon body, an F4, because of the superior metering and that she would not swap all her big glass for the new AF versions. I had a Dutchman ridicule me once for taking photos of a pack of timber wolves with an old manual telezoom lens. Pity I could not show him the best pictures I took that day. That would have shut him up.

Ignore Henry. Plenty of working pros today still use and advocate manual operation and focus. Pixel peepers and forum heads who have poor shooting technique will always need something to blame for their shortcomings -- in today's times it is "inferior" equipment.

Not only blind. Just enough you get some issues with eyesight. Unless you're a young kid - simple dioptre correction won't be enough for precise manual focusing.Not to mention an issues with continuous tracking of moving objects.

I'm pleased for you that you can focus so well manually, that's wonderful - what does that have to do with anyone else? My eyes are such that it is impossible for me to ever get an accurately focused image via manual focusing through anything other than luck. But I guess I just shouldn't be taking photographs.

I am shooting the K-30, which in some sense is an updated K-5II. After playing with the Live-view I got hooked. Now I am using an LCD Viewfinder and shoot with Live-view most of the time. CDAF is more precise, workflow is way faster.

So to me this Olympus would be the way better camera, at least on paper. It as an electronic viewfinder which makes the camera half as obtrusive than using an LCD viewfinder and the resolution is double too.

Only question would be if the Camera Operating System on the Oly lets you work as smooth as the one on the Pentax?

Thanks for the trolling Plastek, but as a former Pentax owner I know from bitter experience that your statement is complete hogswash. M4/3 + 4/3 = >Pentax lens range. That's without getting into how using legacy MF Pentax lenses is easier on M4/3 than on Pentax's own cameras...

Well, if we take all of the lenses that you can use through adaptors than sure - m4/3 wins with pretty much every system but NEX out there (as NEXes can adapt m4/3 lenses on top of everything m4/3 can).

I don't see how Olympus could catch up to Nikon and Canon in the larger sensors sector, but they keep doing a heck of a good job creating market differentiation with very portable and feature-rich, reasonably priced cameras supported by a strong array of good lenses. Like the FIAT 500, these cameras also look very cute. I come from military electronic engineering and quality management, and can split a technical hair in 16. I am also up to my neck in fine art photography to satisfy the right side of my brain. When I pick up a camera like this, I can't help being in awe of what they are able to pack into such a small body. I surely can mention some stuff that I would like and is not there, but the thought of the photographic possibilities that they offer is overwhelming. It makes me feel like dropping everything and run out to take the best pictures I can.

"I don't see how Olympus could catch up to Nikon and Canon" - it won't. And it doesn't even want to. I think target for Oly is to milk fanboys (with cameras like this one) and gain ground in mirrorless systems.

I own a lot of cameras, from a variety of manufacturers — Oly among them.

I have to say that Oly is the most innovative camera manufacturer of them all, and the IQ of the 4/3 system is up to par with the larger sensor offerings (my criteria being a full page — roughly 9" x 12" — color separation).

Yeah, using the same old sensor and implementing PDAF which has been done for years now. Everything else, processor, IBIS are just incremental upgrades. Nothing innovative or groundbreaking here. Just a not so small anymore, expensive system with a maddening user interface and small sensor from a company desperately trying not to fold up shop.

I am so clueless about this AF fine adjustment. Why would any on-sensor AF system, whether CDAF or PDAF, need any adjustment at all? If the system is in focus and the system is on the sensor, what is there left to adjust?

Also, what about low light AF sensitivity limit that never gets mentioned? That is where CDAF has always been behind PDAF and so has this new on-sensor PDAF closed the gap at all?

PDAF basically takes a measurement, then tells the lens where to focus. Any little deviation results in the focus being off. Variation in the PDAF sensors themselves (although probably less common when they are in sensor). Variation in the lenses. In older lenses the accuracy of the measurements on how far the focus moved often weren't accurate enough. Canon for example has improved this in their most recent bodies and lens (but you need both to see the benefit). There are a number points where PDAF can be inaccurate and those will vary from body to body and lens to lens.

CDAF looks at the actually light creating the image and works to get the maximum contrast. Although flaws may come in from picking a strong contrast point which isn't where the photographer wants it, or software flaws, it doesn't have the inherent accuracy issues that PDAF does. Better software/algorithms and faster processors improve CDAF. (Well, and fast sensor readouts and proper motors & communication with lens)

CharlesTokyo -- many thanks but I think most everyone here already knows how CDAF and PDAF function. Traditional PDAF has sometimes required micro-adjustment precisely because the AF sensor module is NOT on the image sensor itself. However, when the AF sensor and the image sensor are the same "thing", it remains to be explained what is actually being achieved with an adjustment. All I can think of (though I've not seen it mentioned anywhere) is an error in the beam splitter. Perhaps the two beams are converging on the image sensors AF pixels when the overall non-split image itself is not converging on the sensor. Just a guess.

I'd suggest to do the tests with a faster lens (75mm @ F1.8 or 50-200 @200 & F3.5), and/or at longer focal lengths, specially the second one.Because just about EVERYTHING in the frames is essentially in focus (actually, I think the trunk behind the horse in #17 has better focus than the horse itself), so the test has no much useful information.I would suggest also to disable NR, since it ruins sharpness judgement (the hair of the girl is an ugly mess).

Af tracking is very good on samsung nx300, considering the big sensor. It performs better than nikon d7100 and pentax k5-ii. And it's much better than em5. Now, perhaps, em1 is better BUT you never tested and/or considered nx300, which has been out for almost 6 months, now, so you can't say that mirrorless are not good at af tracking simply ignoring one camera.

> Considering the Nikon's extra 8 megapixel's it doesn't offer that much more detail.

Really? In RAW, look at the Beatles patch, the drawing to the left of it, the hair, the Schilling note. The difference in acutance is pretty surprising.

The E-M1 looks closer to the X-Pro1 in RAW which is surprising consider previous issues the Fuji has had with ACR RAW conversions from the X-Trans sensor. The GX7 is also matching the E-M1 pretty well.

> much depends on the person performing the RAW>JPEG conversion and how detail and sharpness is adjusted.

DPR uses the exact same RAW workflow for each camera, AFAIK. If they didn't the RAW comparison would be meaningless.

It really doesn't matter. You can not see the difference with the naked eye in an 8X10 at arms length or in a 20X30 from the 6 feet away that you should view it from. All this yammering about pixels and processor tricks are all as irrellevent as Ford or Chevy. I went Nikon for digital at first, changed to Oly for my own personal reasons that would not make a bit of difference to anyone else, and I love my Olys. I will put up with any inconvenience to contiue to use my Olys till they dont work any longer and there are none to get, new or otherwise. If you need to get to work, the Ford or the Chevy either one will accomplish the task. Which one you love is as subjective as choosing a spouse. Same with the camera...any camera can get to the photo. The one you love? Well that has nothing to do with pixels and abstract factoids but all to do with you.

> All this yammering about pixels and processor tricks are all as irrellevent as Ford or Chevy.

Which is why DPR has a RAW Studio comparison tool, so people can download and compare the RAW output from different cameras. Most digital cameras at this level offer good IQ but that doesn't mean pixel peeping or converting some sample RAWs is a total waste of time. For example, one reason I sold my E-PL5 was because of the extremely warm colors biased to red. So I'm interested to see if the E-M1 RAW files are as warm as the E-PL5 and it turns out they are dramatically more red (the faces look sunburnt). That is an example of why DPR even bothers with the RAW test scenes.

And when Olympus releases a so-called Pro or Prosumer EM-1 at a price point considerably higher than their previous flagship EM-5, not to mention the GH3 and GX7, prospective buyers are going to want to see how IQ compares to them, and to the rest of the competition.

> This pastime of pitting one camera against the other is a childish game of oneupmanship something to do after they realize their creative juices have long dried up.

Seriously, that's what you are going with?

Researching cameras includes comparing files with other similarly priced cameras. That is why DPR even has a comparison tool. It's not about "oneupmanship", but about figuring out what is best for your needs, what a new model can do, what RAW files can do in Lightroom, how a camera compares to a previous model and to other cameras on the market.

These are some of the reasons why DPR provides us with RAW files and the studio comparison tool.

Not really, I don't care all that much. Just test driving the new studio scene.

But considering that you've more than likely read all the ridiculous comparisons to the D600, 6D, and 5D3 below, and talk of "the EM-1 as the death knell to the mirror box" and other such koolaid sipping talK, it's funny how upset you get by my simple observations.

If the situation were reversed and the EM-1 test photos somehow looked dramatically better than a D7100 or 70D, rest assured that EVERY OTHER comment would have mentioned it. So kindly give me a break.

@ marike6For someone who doesn't "care" you seem to spend a lot of time and effort, not caring. And not caring, and not caring.

A true comparison of output is done with jpg not RAW - if you want to compare the default the settings of the manufacturers. RAW files are cooked, by the software, by the users ability to work with the software and very dependent on display card and monitor. If you're not comparing prints, you're comparing pixels and that's about as meaningless as it gets.

If the e-pl5 output you were getting from RAW was too red, the first place to look is your workflow, methodology and software settings.

If I was shooting a D800, I sure wouldn't be arguing with Olympus users. However, definitely keep reminding us of our errors...

Gentlemen. In the original post there were 2 observations; the first was camera A is sharper per pixel than camera B which is pixel peeping; and the second that the raw files are too red which is subjective. Both observations lead to the inferred conclusion that camera A is better than camera B...hence the (ducks). Shoot a wedding with either camera and hand the bride's mamma the 8X10s and, having no extreme enlarged crop on a Retina screen to compare them, she will not be able to tell the difference and will be thrilled, assuming the person running the camera can indeed run the camera. And without another 8X10 to compare, she wont be able to tell which is redder and therefore will still be thrilled. Same thing happens with the print hanging on the wall for all to enjoy. Sorry I started this with saying such things as "camera A is better than camera B" don't matter but it just doesn't.

If you say "I like my spouse better than your spouse", that is a valid statement and better be accurate. But if you say' "My spouse is better than yours because they are 2 weeks younger" then that comment is invalid because such a tiny value is of no consequence. Or if you say, "My spouse is better because they weight less", that statement is also invalid as it is subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have an 11X16 print in my office of Crabtree Falls printed by The Slideprinter from Kodachrome 25 (tellin my age).It was taken in1981 with a Pentax K1000 and 50mm f2. People comment always when they first see it, yet it was taken with a camera that was only suited for photography students as determined by "folks in the know" of that day. If I had had a Nikon that day, it could not be anymore beautiful. And that is the point...the best camera is the one you have with you.

Comparing JPEGs is meaningless as it only shows a manufacturers NR and sharpening algorithms. There is no cooked RAWs in Olympus or Nikon AFAIK, and DPR uses the same exact RAW default LR ACR setting to convert every RAW to JPEG for web viewing. But analyzing JPEGs for purpose of comparison is a waste of time.

Re: the E-PL5, my RAW workflow is the same with all cameras. I shoot RAW with a AWB, open in LR with WB set to "As Shot". And the E-PL5 RAWs shot in Daylight are as warm as any I've ever seen. Have you ever seen a yellow flower rendered as almost orange? But I didn't think such a warm bias could get any more extreme until I saw these E-M1 RAWs above with the red faces. Surely I'm not the only one who noticed.

Anyway, not arguing with anyone, just researching, playing with new test scene and procrastinating. Cheers.

And I understand what your saying as I have from the first post. And yes, there is no argument, just a lack of higher understanding. You are absolutely correct that comparing JPEGS is a waste of time, BUT, so is comparing the relatively minute differences in RAW or COOKED or SMELTED or whatever. No one will ever walk by a print hanging on a wall being lit by ambient light and say, "Wow that print would be so much better if the camera had not had so much red bias in its raw files". In the film days we dealt with this type of thing with filters and film choices, now we use camera settings and post processing. Either way, its still subjective and it still doesn't matter. One could take a D50, shoot a wedding, and, as long as they didn't need to crop much, the results would be beautiful. Certainly any modern camera could do at least as well.

Tiger Woods can take my clubs that I can't hit to save my life and beat everyone I know to death with them (on the links). But somewhere is a golf blog where folks are lamenting over Ping vs Calaway. For Tiger, this doesn't mater except for personal preference...ditto for me. It does not matter.

I don't have my EM5 on me right now but I recall it being very warm in AWB when I first got it. I went into the menu and toggled off something to the effect of "preserve warm tone" and have for the most part been pleased with AWB since.

Exactly, any look can be accomplished in modern cameras with camera controls and post processing in the products of any of the camera makers. Once on the wall, who cares what buttons were pushed? If we can't afford the camera, adapt to what we can afford or buy it used, whatever it takes to take a camera with us. So we can be ready when the picture and us arrive in the same place! The best camera is the one we have in our hand regardless of the pixels or WB tweaking.

Fortunately those users worried about high price can get the superb E-M5. But for those who need a large buffer (50+ RAW), 1/8000th shutter, 0.74x 100% viewfinder, improved support for 43 lenses, and direct controls for practically everything, not to mention 1/320th sync speed, 10 fps and improved continuous autofocus the E-M1 is available. The E-M1 isn't a replacement for the E-M5 -- they are different product lines in the same excellent m43 system.

Agree the E-M5 is now available for $850 body only a realistic and good value purchase. I couldn't say the same for a $ 1400 12bit, one card slot no cross type PDAF on sensor elements, I would not calll that camera (E-M1) a prosumer never mind a pro.

Cross type PDAF sensors are useful when you are using a single PDAF point on a camera with only 9 or 18 or 45 PD sensors which are much larger than a single-pixel PD sensor. The OM-D doesn't have just 9 or 45 PD sensors it has 1 million. And so uses thousands or 10s of thousands of PD sensors to autofocus on a single point as opposed to 1. In addition it also combines the highly accurate CDAF system.

At $1400 it's still the only camera under $1500 with a 100% 0.74x viewfinder, 50+ RAW image buffer, 1/8000 shutter, 10fps, image stabilisation that works with all lenses and a 1/320 sync speed. And it's the smallest camera with all these features.

> At $1400 it's still the only camera under $1500 with a 100% 0.74x viewfinder.

The D7100 has a 100% Pentaprism VF with 0.94X magnification, 14-bit RAW, class leading resolution and IQ, 1080/24p and 720/60p video, in-camera crop modes, 1/8000 shutter and D4 AF system for $1199. That's the rub for some.

marike6: "The D7100 has a 100% Pentaprism VF with 0.94X magnification,"

It is APS-C 0.94x, meaning 0.63x to Oly 0.74x FF-equivalent.

coroander, $700 NEX-6 has viewfinder about as big (0.73x FF-equivalent, nobody would notice a difference) and just as detailed. 10 fps are without AF or tracking - not totally useless, but then NEX-6 has 10 fps with C-AF (and old A57 has something like 12). And you need 1/8000 why? Because E-M1 has no native ISO100, just the pulled down one? Well, NEX-6 does have ISO100. For $630 actually: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-alpha-NEX-6-16-1-MP-Digital-Camera-Black-Body-Only-/130958397672?pt=Digital_Cameras&hash=item1e7dba90e8

It does not have 1 million sensors for PD do you really think they would give up 1/16 of their pixels for resolution. It has some sensors per line nobody knows but Olympus how many are used for phase detection.

rxbot: actually, Olympus has stated publicly that 1/16 of the pixels are used for phase detection (see Robin Wong's latest blog entry, for example). However, it's important to note that this does not occur across the entire frame, as it is just a diamond-shaped pattern in the middle which is capable of phase detection.

I don't know how many pixels were lost, but at a rough estimate I would say 1/16 across half of the frame, which is 500,000 pixels, or half a megapixel.

yabokkie - you don't shoot too much, do you? If you would - you'd know that linear AF sensors get lost not only if you set them exactly parallel to the lines in a photograph.You would also know that the advantage they bring is also in higher sensitivity (though since on-sensor phase detection came out - noone seems to care anymore about AF sensitivity - they are happy if AF can track basic slow-moving objects in bright daylight).

Looking at the specs and prices, this looks like a direct competitor to the Canon EOS 70D. Is there some killer feature that would make a buyer choose the Olympus over the Canon (or vice versa)? A side by side list would be very useful.

The killer features are many, but two killer features are 5-axis image stabilisation that works with all lenses (not just OIS on canon lenses that is only available on some of their lenses). The Olympus image stabilisation is also amazing on video. The other killer feature is weight and size -- there are many here who abandoned DSLRs for m43 for a superb system that is much lighter and smaller and just as (or more) capable.

There are no, as far as I am aware, cross-type arrays on any of the Oly PDAF sensors. So whilst the standard Four Thirds DSLR lenses will work better on this new Oly cam, they still aren't working optimally.

If that matters to some users, then I guess the Canon cam is better (but then, I guess, if a consumer is so concerned about cross-type AF sensors they'd not even be looking at an EVF based live view camera).

It is all about how good olympus advertise their product and how canon/nikon do this as well. Most of people, specially the beginer always remain in popular brand. Another one, is advertised by how many people using the olympus can spread ther thought about olympus to the other by using many media. The last one, how all camera brand make many improvement of their product.

As usual, the m4/3 haters hv come out to bash the new E-M1 with the same old tired & irrelevant comparisons with FF cams. I see it as a compliment that some folks r so jealously flinging mud at the E-M1 by pitting it against the FF cams. It's like comparing a BMW M3 vs M5... each has it's merits & if you're in the market for one, it comes down to your personal preferences. Do you NEED one? Who CARES? That's your privilege! Just stop being so bitchy about everything, ESPECIALLY if you're not interested in one.

What really matters to Oly, Canon, Nikon et. el. is whe consumers adopt their products. If the numbers coming from Amazon US r anything to go by, then it's highly promising so far!

"12 hours after the announcement the Olympus E-M1 is the most sold (orders+ preorders) digital camera at Amazon US. The ranking includes all camera like compact cameras, Sony QX, DSRL and Mirrorless cameras... And the 12-40mm lens is on second place of the Lens ranking..." according to 43rumours.

As much as digital is different, the physics of photography are the same with digital as it is with film. Despite all the yammering about pixals and IQ, the truth remains that all formats up to FF are amateur formats just like they are in film. An 8X10 out of FF is 720 sq mm vs 297 for Nikon APS-C, 277 for Canon, and 211 for Oly. Not much difference when compared to an 8X10 out of 645 at 2324, 6X7 at 3920, and 4X5 at 11,834! All this yammering is like the deer hunters that argue 7mm Mag over 270's...both will kill an elk, ergo... During the film only days, Pros chose the different formats for obvious reasons, size and weight with small farmat, compromise with medium format, and ultimate IQ with large format. And then they chose their system by their preferences and needs. Same today. No one is 'brillant' for choosing Nikon nor is any one 'demented' for choosing Oly. And the bottom line, A decent rifle is better than the shooter just like A simple camera is better than the photographer.

McFern - it's not that simple. Someone wise once told that you see a large difference in an image if you compare sensors which area difference is greater or equal to 50%. In case of m4/3 - it is exactly that comparing to FF.By your logic - we should all switch to 1" or heck: even some better smartphone cameras, cause after all only "pro" is large format.

Apples and oranges. The point is about the relatively insignificant difference between one small format camera and the other...apples and apples. The preocupation with worrying about little differences is a habit with folks like nicotine. Anyhoo, by your logic Galen Rowell would have used a 8X10 like Ansel Adams because its the best. (I would classify each as a pro) My point is, and always has been, choose what works for you and take it with you. That smartphone photo will be better than all the photos not taken. I have searched for the perfect camera and found that it does not exist but then Im not a perfect photographer either, nor is anyone else. But Galen or Ansel could take a smart phone and blow us away...and that's all Im saying.

Something seems not quite right here. At all resolution levels including "Print" and "Web" the E-M1 has visually similar noise level (perhaps within 0.5 EV) to the Canon 5D Mark III (within the shadows in particular). Theoretically there should be a 2 stop advantage to the 5d, and even is the E-M1 sensor has better per-pixel S/N performance than the 5d, I would not expect them to be so similar.Were both sensors really exposed to the same amount of light per sensor area?

Checking the EXIF exposure parameters shows that the 5D is underexposed relative the E-M1 . Is the light source controlled or varied? If varied than these test shots are not controlled and do not give an accurate comparison of expected noise levels between cameras.

Note that I am basing these comments on comparison of RAWs under the "Low Light" scene option

You must have been looking at jpeg samples. The 5DIII despite being behind Nikon in sensor performance, still is substantially ahead of the m4/3 sensors even at a print size of 8MP.What I find revealing though is how close the m4/3 sensors perform versus APS sensors, even the d7100. The APSC might be resolving better but I doubt it useful at 8MP print sizes, even the RX100 MII is not far behind in that mode. Very interesting times.

It's really amazing how crop sensor cameras have closed the gap. Remember, these are well lit comparisons and FF does have an advantage when pushing a RAW file in tough lighting situations. That said, the difference between APS-C and 4/3rds has shrunk to almost nothing--something that many didn't expect and a few don't believe even when they see it.

We are still in the beginning of the digital photography era and people are scared, obsessed, prejudiced, manipulated, influenced, etc. So they can't observe things in peace, form an educated opinion without interruption and 'sage advices' from 'pixel-peeping gurus', 'tech pundits', lobbyists, never sleeping 'f-stoppists', paranoiFFs, etc. I think m4/3 has its place in the world, it deserves to be more often considered and fairly reviewed, and I wish Olympus and Panasonic all the luck with it. E-M1 looks like a brilliant camera.

Well, digital is the key word here. Pulled many people into photography (again) which is good. Sadly it gave an easy way to argue / flame to the same people. And emotions also go digital, both in love and hate. My hope are clean ISO 1000000000000000000000000 images so everybody can go out even in darkest night taking images instead of hanging around and waiting for better light ;)

Olympus's E-5M was like Chrysler's re-introduced Challenger. A nice piece of nostalgia, expensive, nice-looking, high-performance, but ultimately not up to the task of competing on a handling level with a modern design. Hence, the new body with the grip and more conventional design.

I wouldn't trust the D7100 body as being weather "sealed." Maybe rain-proof at best. The only truly sealed camera was the Olympus E-1, which had industrial grade 4 seals whereas other cameras were only grade 1 or 2, at best.

Heck my K-30 was completely weather and dust sealed, just like the K20D before it and all three versions of the K-5. I've shot in pouring rain with the K-30 a number of times without a single issue. Pentax, Nikon and Canon have been building robust weather sealed bodies for years.

So to you 12 bit v 14 bit makes difference. Please show us example in wich such difference is visible to human eye.I think people who really need such depth for their work,don't buy cameras found on this review site.

There have been reports of weather sealing failures with the E-M5 (moisture appearing in the EVF window, for example). So anyone coming from the more "pro-like" E3 or E5 had to be more careful with their E-M5. Not inflict as much abuse.

So the news of better weather-sealing with the newer E-M1, more comparable to the E3/E5, is good news.

Very disappointed. Olympus has given up on trying to be a semi-professional camera in both looks and function. I'm not about to use an adapter to connect my Olympus 4/3 lenses to a to a less than 4/3 camera. I guess I'm ready to chuck it all in and go to a full frame, full functioning camera. Up until now, I've been happy with my E-5 and the 5 lenses, but now I have lost total faith and patience with Olympus. Looks like they are in a downward death spiral.

Lets see a body partly based on the pro OM-3 and OM-4 and the grip from the pro E-1. So that is not pro enough for you? And the problem with using an adaptor is? I am a professional photographer and the adaptor is so easy to use. No different to using a lens board adaptor on a pro large format camera from Sinar to Linhof.

No, it was their best move. The huge E-3 and E-5 bodies looked almost silly with their little 4/3rds sensor. The case can be made that a larger body will always be more easily handled, but Olympus and the camera makers aren't actively trying to ape pro Nikons and Canons any more.

This camera is light years ahead in performance vs E5 (except maybe in tracking focus) so what is your complaint. An adapter just sits where the "Mirror" would be - like a spacer. You never need to take it off so whats the big deal?

There is a market for a small Pro grade camera. In photography, one cannot compare a full frame 35mm DSLR, a medium format DSLR and a micro 4/3 digital camera. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. One just have to use the right one for the occassion. Only trolls make a big fuss out of it.

I have been using a micro 4/3 camera happily along my Canon 5D MkII for about 5 years. On many occassion, I may even use my humble Canon G12 for intrepid shots. Cameras are just tools to get the shots.

This camera is only about 1/2 an inch narrower than the full frame Nikon D600 and it is not much cheaper. The difference in image quality between a 4/3 sensor and a full frame is huge. The Olympus therefore sacrifices image quality without any benefit in compactness or a much lower price. Olympus fans may swoon over this new toy, but most other photographers will simply walk away.

As soon as you say anything with the word 'pro' in it pro camera owners get all defensive. Well, Olympus 4/2 lenses are PRO quality and here is the body that best matches those lenses. It may not be FF but neither are the size of the lenses.

I strongly suggest you put this camera next to a D600, and you'll see quite a considerable difference is camera body size. The E-M1 is *much* more compact than a D600. And even more compact when you add in the lenses. As for IQ, well, not everyone is an anal pixel peeper. It really all depends on what you're shooting, and how big you print. There will be plenty of people who will prefer the more compact size of this camera and the m4/3 system, relative to the D600 and full frame lenses.

It's entirely a different market. The consumers chose to go and pay for a m4/3 that satisfied their needs in terms of performance and image quality, and the size/weight advantages is good value for them.As someone already stated above, IQ is sufficient at print sizes. It was a revelation to me using DPRs new studio tool and the (8MP)Print Mode.

The EM-1 is a flagship product with an even smaller performance/price ratio for a niche market.

If you are a travel photographer like me, the Micro 4/3 quality is more than enough. No complaints at all. Most travel photos would be printed up to A4 size only. At most, occassionally, a double page spread which is A3. The print quality is absolutely fine. In fact, on many occassion, a Canon G12 or Lumix LX7 is more than capable enough.

Obviously, if one is shooting sports like surfing one will need a completely different combo. In this case, you will need a Canon 1DX with a 200-400mm f/4.0L IS lens on a monopod.

If one is shooting a motor GP, for example, you will definitely need a Canon 1DX with a 500mm f/4.0L IS lens with a monopod. That's a different ball game. Even a Pro photographer will find it challenging if he is not used to it.

There are three main benefits to FF sensors : resolution, DOF control, and low-light performance. Of these three only one remains roughly independent from the lens' aperture : resolution (it is only affected by the lens' resolution performance, not its max aperture per se). The other two remain valid only insofar as the lens aperture remains a constant variable. If you think about it, for a (roughly) similar weight and size, you can either have a Canon 6D + 40mm or a E-M1 + 20mm f1.7 (or the 17mm or 25mm). That the 40mm is more than one stop slower than equivalent lenses available on m43 partially negates the advantage of a FF sensor (without nullifying them of course). Same for zooms. Then think about other benefits from the E-M1 (better build, faster frame-rate, quieter shutter, customisation, etc…) and you realise that it isn't a poor competitor to entry-level FF cameras. Photographers will prefer one over the other according to which characteristics they value most, that's it.

What about those FT lenses which, back then when contrast detection AF in live view was added to Four Thirds DSLRs, officially were declared to be contrast-detection-AF-compatible? Like the ZD 14-54 II, or the later Panasonic/"Leica" lenses? Are they forced into phase detection AF like the other FT lenses, or can they be used with contrast detection AF? Do I get to choose?

However, while some of those lenses were 'compatible' with CDAF, they were always faster when focused in PDAF mode, so it's entirely logical that this camera would try to drive them using the method for which they were primarily designed.

Thanks for the information! The reason I was asking is that, in dim light and with those lenses, I sometimes switch the E-30 to live view only to put it into contrast detection AF mode, because, while much slower, in conditions like that it sometimes turns out to be more reliable and more precise than phase-detection AF. Even with the E-30's quasi-prehistoric implementation of contrast AF...

We all know it is a good camera. The ? is is it a $550 better than E- M5 camera. For those that have the money don't rush into buying yet. In Oct. we should see full frame mirrorless NEX 7 size ilc camera for about $2000, hoping it comes with EVF but perhaps an option.

Unfortunately the NEX system doesn't have many quality lenses, and those that are quality are just plain massive. It's the nonsense of NEX -- tiny bodies matched with large lenses (or small aperture lenses). Just wait for the FF NEX -- with a body double the price and even larger lenses. Unlikely that NEX will ever pick up enough users to support the range of lenses that m43 offers now.

Whatever the arguments are on here, it's all just opinion. Some like the E- M1, others don't. Some like Canon and Nikon, others don't, which is all very fair.

As for the price, some might think it's value for money whist others won't. Everything is all subjective anyway, so what's all this, "The Raw photos at 3200 on my 7100 are better than this, so all you Olympus buyers don't know what you're on about" stuff. It's all in the eye of the beholder and what the individual thinks.

After all, you can take rubbish photos with a £5,000 piece of kit and damn good ones with a £100 camera.

I like the looks of the E-M1, the EM-5 and most of the latest PENs. Why do some, especially Oly fanboys, want to see the OVF go away? I think it is because Olympus has taken a different route. Not necessarily a better one, but a different one. And not necessarily by choice, but by force. And so their faithful want to see Olympus trump the big boys. It isn't going to happen.

Yes, the OVF is dead. It's a relic from the film days. A clever and refined relic, but it will only live on in a few nostalgic cameras in the future. If we were inventing cameras today, with live sensors, and somebody would suggest putting a mirror in front of the sensor for the photographers to frame the picture, people would think that person were mad.

Sure the OVF is dead. That's must be why DSLRs outsell mirrorless cameras by a huge margin in some areas like Europe by as much as 9-to-1. And that must also be why the overwhelming majority of professional photographers are shooting a Canikon FF with big, bright beautiful OVFs. And that must also be why none of the mirrorless vendors are making a profit at all and some are even precariously close to shuttering their doors forever.

I remember the outcries of film fans not so long ago that digital will never achieve the quality of celuloid photos . Film today is less than a niche, almost obsolete. Same will happen to the optical viewfinder . In a world digital, a mirror has no place. Wait and see.

15 years ago (not "not so long ago") I remember the outcries of film fans that it would take many, many years (not "never") for digital to achieve the quality of celluoid photos. Thanks to Canon it happened rather quickly.

In order for EVFs to even have a chance of replacing OVFs completely and especially in the pro market the fallowing has to happen:

No perceptible lag difference between OVF and EVF in ALL lighting conditions.

On sensor phase detection AF has to become just as fast and accurate as the dedicated phase detection AF modules for both static and moving subjects and in all lighting conditions. Until the on sensor AF if up to shooting say the Olympics, a football game or even just a middle school track and field meet OVFs and dedicated phase detection AF modules are here to stay.

EVFs need to have much more dynamic range, at least within a stop of the sensor in the camera but ideally match or exceed it.

Higher capacity batteries or lower power consumption EVFs are needed.

EVFS still need some improvement in resolution but they are getting there on this one.

"If we were inventing cameras today, with live sensors, and somebody would suggest putting a mirror in front of the sensor for the photographers to frame the picture, people would think that person were mad."

Until that person explained it allowed for the use of the far superior, especially at tracking moving subjects, dedicated Phase detection AF module and a bright, real time OVF that provides a much clearer view of the scene, is usable in all lighting conditions and significantly improved the battery life of the camera. In fact if digital cameras with EVFs using CD AF or even on sensor PD AF were invented first and film never existed it is likely when OVFs and dedicated phase detection AF modules showed up they would replace EVFs almost over night.

"Isn't that the single, most important message the EM-5 sent out? The optical viewfinder is superior in most regards and isn't going anywhere."

Well I use a Sony A77 and I can tell you optical viewfinders are inferior to EVF's in most regards and the main reason why is we are talking aps-c (or for Oly 4/3) sized sensors and even the best OVF's on cameras with these sized sensors are like looking down a tunnel.

On full frame OVF's work and I doubt Canikon will be switching to EVF's anytime soon but for smaller sensor camera they simply knock spots off OVF's and that is before you consider the inherent advantages such as the fact you have a WYSIWYG representation of the photo you are about to take.

Well, if there really is a huge base of mirrorless ILC fans out there outside of Japan, then this new Oly should be a huge success for the company. We will know by the end of the Christmas shopping season. Good luck Oly!

I'm liking the range of recent offerings from Fuji, Sony, Panasonic and Olympus. Good range of price points and mix of functionality and output. The short flange, "crop" sensor "mirrorless" may not be for everyone but then Medium format isn't either.

Good job Olympus, melding the 4/3 and m4/3. Nice to know I'll be able to use M, ZD and Cosina all on one body if I want.

In the beginning, I found the menues of the E-M5 bizarre and confusing, too.

It took me some time of practizing and I discovered the deeper secrets of and the logics behind it - then they not only did make sense to me but also gave me the freedom of being able to choose from a wild variety of options I hadn't considered before.

Thanks to Sony, Olympus is proving sensor size matters little and that a smaller sensor can perform as good or better than larger ones. We saw this with the RX100 too. Add those F/2 zooms and improved 5 axis IBIS and I can see why this camera is so popular.The new Sony Alpha cameras will be very similar - 5 axis ibis and same ospdaf -but sans the Olympus jpeg engine.EDIT: If they get PDAF working well, the extra reach of the 4/3rds lenses will make this very popular with people who love small but long telephoto lenses.

The 70D is probably the only camera that can do a true focus technology shootout with itself. Hopefully, someone will do a thorough review of how that cameras performs in focus tracking using traditional PDAF vs LV/on-sensor PDAF. Probably the same for very low light AF, too. Until then, we're mostly just guessing at how good on-sensor PDAF has become.

I'm happy for Oly fans, but personally don't see the point in bulky, oversized mirrorless camera with small sensor compare to DSLR. The price of body and lenses is separate story — you can find the full frame options very close to this price. All impressive features still doesn't make this camera a professional tool — and here Olympus lost the touch with reality a little bit. Again, this is just my personal opinion.

I think the point is that M43 is a complete system with a lot of choice. Within that system you have cheap, small cameras (EPM3, GF5), highly capable small cameras (EM-5, EP-5, G6) and larger (but still small compared to DSLR) fully featured cameras. And you can use the same lenses across the whole range.

Yes, the biggest M43 cam is not dissimilar in size to the smallest APS DSLR, but the system as a whole is significantly smaller and lighter.

In my opinion, FF is a different market. It is significantly larger and better image quality. I think Oly priced the EM1 just right, positioning it against flagship APSC DSLRs. Some people are willing to pay the price for a compact/lighter system, especially those making money from their photography.

(Reuters) - To stem the red ink on its loss-making camera division, Olympus Corp has decided to rely on a format that so far has been a flop outside of its home turf in Japan.

The company on Tuesday released the "OM-D E-M1", a mirrorless model Olympus says is the first of its kind to compete on quality with traditional single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras.

Olympus is now hoping the E-M1, priced for the pro market at 145,000 yen ($1,500) for the body alone, will help it boost mirrorless and SLR sales by 24 percent to 7.3 million units to allow its camera business to finally break even for the first time in four years.

The E-M1 illustrates Olympus's dedication to the mirrorless format, heralded at its inception as a happy marriage between the size of a compact camera and the picture quality of an SLR. But the format has so far failed to connect with consumers outside of Japan, with most seeing it as an awkward compromise.

If outside Japan is the US, than this article made some sense. But outside Japan and the US there are other countries. In Europe Olympus managed to gain marketshare since the introduction of m4/3. For Olympus, a small company with small marketshare, m4/3 is a success. In Japan a great hit, in other countries a smaller hit, but still it's successful.

It's a well known fact that almost every camera division losses money on point and shoot models. Olympus losses a lot on the point and shoots. So they decided this year to quit with the lowest class point and shoots and only produce a hand full of special models. That, and some other minor things, should bring the Olympus camera division to a profit.

In the same report Olympus states that the E-M5 was a huge commercial success. A major hit for them. They lost some marketshare with the PEN's. But the Olympus marketshare in the mirrorless market is good.

My advise, read the report itself and not the small summary of Reuters.

This is a year of "below expectations" for camera companies. Anything is possible, but I doubt that Olympus' camera division will break even this calendar year. They have already said that PEN sales were down 12%.

No don_van_vliet, now you are putting words in my mouth. I would like it to have "widespread success" in the small niche M4/3 has created for itself. That is the small number worldwide of people that don't feel this is an overpriced, oversized camera for the compromises that one needs to accept.

That it will be very popular with the couple of thousand M4/3 enthusiasts that frequent dpr and sites like it is unquestioned. But worldwide widespread success? No! Why would a more expensive, larger camera in the same format come to Oly's rescue or at least achieve some modicum of commercial success when it's cheaper, smaller brother could not?

Yes we saw it with the price of the E-M5. It did come down 50% in a few months time.... O no, it didn't. Even a year after introduction it was almost the same price as the introduction price. Some of the PEN's did go down fast in price. Like the E-PL3 and E-PM1, but not the higher models like the E-P3, E-M5, E-5. Get your facts straight, maybe than someone will take you serious.

sure about that? personally, i think, mFT is a very nice compromise between small and "large size" sensors (whatever that means).

it has a chance in this "price level" because1. mFT is significantly smaller than APS or FF2. mFT is cheaper than APS or FF

hate to state it, but because there are point and shoot cameras like the Olympus E-PL3 Kit for 250 euros out there, more people can afford the mFT system, compared to EF or F. we will see how the situation will be in 10 years. i think: amazing!